|  
   Last 
        modified: 
        
        March 23, 2019
 back
 
 About 
        the BEAR/Multi-Stakeholder Recovery Project ReportUnderstanding Beverage Container Recycling:
 A Value Chain Assessment
 Will 2002 be remembered 
        as the year that industry and environmentalists came together and produced 
        a report that broke through long standing biases and allowed cost-effective 
        new and expanded deposit systems to be implemented? This may be the outcome 
        of the BEAR/Multi-Stakeholder Recovery Project report! We believe this report 
        is historic. It gives environmentalists, elected officials and policymakers 
        the data they need - from unimpeachable sources - to close the case for 
        deposits. The complete report is available at www.globalgreen.org/bear.[off-site] WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE 
        THIS REPORT? 
         it was produced 
          under the watchful eyes of both the beverage industry and environmentalists 
          (see 'Who Produced the Report,' below) the data were 
          gathered by leading researchers who often work for the beverage industry. it provides a 
          fact-based foundation on which to develop a beverage container recycling 
          system that will double the current beverage container recycling rate 
          to 80% and be cost-efficient for the beverage industry. WHY IS THIS REPORT 
        IMPORTANT? 
         it draws attention 
          to the problem of declining beverage container recycling rates and increased 
          wasting. it provides hard 
          numbers that confirm the superior performance of deposit/return programs, 
          over curbside recycling and drop-off collection.  it identifies 
          revenues that can offset the cost of deposit programs: money from the 
          sale of the used bottles and cans and deposit money left in the system 
          by consumers who choose not to return their containers for refunds (unredeemed 
          deposits) it shows how when 
          these revenues are factored in, deposit programs are less costly than 
          curbside programs -- at no cost to local taxpayers. it shows that 
          some deposit programs have discovered cost-saving features that increase 
          efficiency and reduce costs over traditional deposit programs (e.g. 
          eliminate sorting by brand through a common fund, open up the system 
          to other return centers besides retail stores, use automated reverse 
          vending machines for container returns.) IF YOU LIVE IN 
        A DEPOSIT STATE/Columbia MO:  
         the report confirms 
          the effectiveness of your program, showing how much more effective it 
          is than curbside programs or drop-off collection; the report points 
          the way to possible 'tweaking' that could be done if necessary to make 
          the program less costly to the beverage industry IF YOU LIVE IN 
        A NON-DEPOSIT STATE: 
         the report shows 
          how much better you could be doing: up to 80% recycling rather than 
          your current recovery the report suggests 
          that your timing is good: your state can now benefit from new information 
          to design a program that is both effective and economical to operate WHO PRODUCED THE 
        REPORT?
 Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling (BEAR) was 
        formed nearly 2 years ago by businesses who needed more PET bottles to 
        use in manufacturing carpet and environmentalists who wanted to reduce 
        the waste of beverage containers. BEAR made a commitment to determine 
        strategies capable of achieving 80% recovery of beverage containers for 
        recycling.
 In May of 2001, BEAR 
        became a project of Global Green USA, a group affiliated with Michail 
        Gorbachev's Green Cross International. The first stage in BEAR's work 
        was the Multi-Stakeholder Recovery Project (MSRP): an effort to use a 
        fact-based process to achieve consensus on strategies to achieve BEAR's 
        goal of 80% container recycling. The MSRP Task Force 
        included Coca-Cola North America; their plastic bottle making cooperative, 
        Southeastern Container; Waste Management, Inc.; Beaulieu of America (maker 
        of carpet with recycled PET plastic bottles); Tomra North America (maker 
        of reverse vending machines); and the Minnesota Office of Environmental 
        Assistance. Environmentalists were represented by Grassroots Recycling 
        Network and the Container Recycling Institute. The MSRP retained 
        a team of leading consultants to carry out research that was ultimately 
        published in the Understanding Beverage Container Recycling report. The 
        authors are: R.W. Beck (lead consultant group), Franklin & Associates 
        , Tellus Institute, and Sound Resource Management.  WHAT DID THE REPORT 
        SAY? Beverage container 
        recycling rates in the U.S. are down, wasting is up. 
        78 billion 
          beverage containers (277 per capita) recycled in 1999114 billion 
          beverage cans and bottles (407 per capita) not recycled in 1999only 41% of containers 
          sold are recycled, the rest are wasted. Beverage container 
        recycling has environmental benefits. 
        Avoided greenhouse 
          gas emissions Energy savings 
           Avoided landfill 
          space  Deposit systems get 
        the best results.  
        Deposits: 422 
          containers per capita recycled in the 10 deposit states,373 
          containers per capita recycled in California
Curbside:127 
          containers per capita recycled in the 40 non-deposit statesResidential drop-offs: 
          31 containers recycled per capita in non-deposit states  Beverage container 
        recovery has a net cost that must be covered by some type of funding mechanism. 
         
         Deposit programs 
          (including California): funded by producers and consumersCurbside programs: 
          funded by local governments and taxpayers Net costs per container 
        recovered in 1999 (including revenue from sale of scrap material) 
        Traditional Deposit 
          Programs: 2.21 cents California Deposit 
          Program: 0.55 cents Curbside Programs: 
          1.72 cents Residential Drop-Off 
          Programs: 0.30 cents  When unredeemed deposits 
        are used to cover costs in deposit programs, net costs are as follows: 
        Traditional Deposit 
          Programs: 0.80 cents California Deposit 
          Programs: (0.43) cents (profit)Curbside Programs: 
          1.72 cents Residential Drop-Off 
          Programs: 0.30 cents  
    
 
 |